From the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” department:
Biofuels not as ‘green’ as many think
Go back to basics when calculating the greenhouse impact and carbon neutrality of biofuels, researchers urge
Statements about biofuels being carbon neutral should be taken with a grain of salt. This is according to researchers at the University of Michigan Energy Institute after completing a retrospective, national-scale evaluation of the environmental effect of substituting petroleum fuels with biofuels in the US. America’s biofuel use to date has in fact led to a net increase in carbon dioxide emissions, says lead author John DeCicco in Springer’s journal Climatic Change.
The use of liquid biofuels in the transport sector has expanded over the past decade in response to policies such as the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and California’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). These policies are based on the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral, meaning that only production-related greenhouse gas emissions need to be tallied when comparing them to fossil fuels.
This assumption is embedded in the lifecycle analysis modelling approach used to justify and administer such policies. Simply put, because plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, crops grown for biofuels should absorb the carbon dioxide that comes from burning the fuels they produce. Using this approach, it is often found that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel offer at least modest net greenhouse gas reductions relative to petroleum fuels.
Field data for assessing the net carbon dioxide emission effect of biofuels has been available since the Renewable Fuel Standard was passed in 2005. DeCicco’s team evaluated the data up to 2013, using the Annual Basis Carbon (ABC) accounting method he previously developed. It takes a circumscribed look at the changes in carbon flows directly associated with a vehicle-fuel system, and does not treat biofuels as inherently carbon neutral.
Instead, the ABC method tallies carbon dioxide emissions on the basis of chemistry in the specific locations where they occur. The system takes into account motor fuel consumption, fuel processing operations and resource inputs, including the use of cropland for biofuel feedstocks. Unlike lifecycle analysis, ABC accounting reflects the stock-and-flow nature of the carbon cycle, recognizing that changes in the atmospheric stock depend on both inflows and outflows.
DeCicco’s team found that the gains in carbon dioxide uptake by feedstock, such as corn, were enough to offset biofuel-related biogenic emissions by only 37 percent, rather than 100 percent, during the period 2005 to 2013.
“This shows that biofuel use fell well short of being carbon neutral even before considering process emissions,” says DeCicco.
In this regard, the researchers concluded that rising US biofuel use has led to a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions. This finding contrasts with those of lifecycle analysis models which indicate that crop-based biofuels such as corn ethanol and soy biodiesel lead to a modest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
DeCicco’s work demonstrates that it is possible to empirically evaluate the necessary condition for a biofuel to offer carbon dioxide mitigation benefits.
“Doing so provides a bounding result that suggests a need for much greater caution regarding the role of biofuels in climate mitigation,” DeCicco concludes.
Reference: DeCicco, J.M. et al. (2016). Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use, Climatic Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1764-4
###
Over at Climate Central, they interviewed the lead author. And they had this to say:
“The question, ‘How does the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline?’ does not have a scientific answer,” DeCicco said. “What I can say definitively is that, whatever the magnitude of the emissions impact is, it is unambiguously worse than petroleum gasoline.”
Ouch! That’s going to leave a mark.
Predictably, the Renewable Fuels Coalition files an “Is too!” response while doing some “big oil” labeling:
Click to access RESPONSE-TO-DeCicco.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And that is before you factor in the environmental damage that palm oil plantations have created, helping to drive the orangutan to the brink of extinction, all in the name of bio diesel.
Plus, the stuff just RUINS engines.
Older engines that use natural rubber for certain components such as fuel lines, yes. More modern engines, no so much.
Most modern engines can handle the 10% ethanol currently used in some areas without issues. Then there are flex fuel engines designed to handle a gas/ethanol blends at up to 85% ethanol.
Yes, E85 will yield lower millage, but with gas prices where they are and E85 running 50-60 cents a gallon less than 87 octane E10, I’m not so sure it isn’t worth the loss in millage.
False. Any car less than 25 years old can easily run with ethanol blends.
This is for MattS
E85 yields less mileage – yes. E85 is cheaper – not in the real world, and that doesn’t include the fact that E85 at the pump is subsidized to get where it is at in price. It may be in California or the rest of the west coast, but like I said, not in the real world. When gasoline runs under $2,00 a gallon, E85 is still over that unless you can buy cash. The Federal government doesn’t use cash at the pump for obvious reasons, but Obama REQUIRES all flexfuel vehicles use E85. I pay at least 10 cents a gallon MORE for E85 and lose 10% of the mileage the vehicle is capable of on gasoline, in theory to lower CO2, and now I see that that isn’t even happening. Slick. The whole reason for taking away food for people and converting it to E85 was to produce less CO2, so we are potentially starving people for nothing.
@MattS and A. Scott – Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
My 2013 Yamaha WR-250 states, in BOLD ALL CAPS, in a label on the fuel tank as well as the Owner’s Manual that using fuel with an alcohol content greater than 10% will damage the engine and void the warranty. My 2015 Yamaha FZ-7 – same thing. My 2011 Husqvarna mower – same thing.
At every race track I regularly go to, there’s a gas station not too far from the track that advertises that there’s “no alcohol” in their fuel. Guess where all the poor amateur racers (like myself) stop to get gas on their way to the track?
You want that stuff in your fuel? Go ahead, knock yourself out. You wanting to feel all huggy/feely about how green your gas is shouldn’t force that choice on me. Let the market decide. Me – I don’t want ANY of that contaminant in my fuel.
TomB,
Ah… how things have changed. Years ago, when I ran SCCA we always looked for a Sunoco station on the way to the track. My little 1900 cc engine loved Sunoco 260 (around 105 octane if I remember correctly) and most of the stations carried it. It was street legal back then.
@Tom O.
I am in Wisconsin. Right Now, the state wide average price at the pump for 87 Octane is $2.14 and the average price for E85 is $1.59.
So what if it’s subsidized. It’s not like me not buying it will stop the subsidy.
@Tom B.
Apparently you have reading comprehension. I said modern engines will handle up to E10 without a problem. I am not aware of anywhere in the US where they are selling anything other than clearly labeled E85 with more than 10% ethanol.
Here is what ethanol blended fuel does to rubber engine parts:
?dl=0
?dl=0
?dl=0
Apparently, there are some marinas now that offer alcohol-free gasoline so that people who go out on the ocean and have to DEPEND on their engine TO NOT BE RUINED BY THEIR FUEL can come back alive and healthy.
@ur momisugly Wayne Delbeke
Looks like a fairly old engine. I assume from the looks that it’s an outboard. A little research shows that the current generation of outboard motors can handle E10 Gas. Maybe it’s time for an upgrade.
TomB … “At every race track I regularly go to, there’s a gas station not too far from the track that advertises that there’s “no alcohol” in their fuel. Guess where all the poor amateur racers (like myself) stop to get gas on their way to the track?”
I have raced car for over 30 years … from local SCCA events in the 80’s to spending many years in the IndyCar series. IndyCar has used ethanol since the mid 2000’s … and that use continues today: “Both engine manufacturers will use a uniform Sunoco E85R fuel in 2016.” Prior to that IndyCars had used methanol for decades – since the 60’s.
NASCAR uses ethanol as well … Sunoco’s “Green 15” … an E15 product. NASCAR uses essentially 1970’s technology – comparatively simple carbureted engines.
Ethanol provides a myriad of advantages in a racing motor.
And this is supposed to be new news ??
g
Costs more and fails to achieve desired results. Why wouldn’t progressive government love it?
Actually costs less either wholesale or retail.
Depends on the comparison, cheap bio-diesel is lower in price the sulfer free Diesel #2, but B100, which has about 6-7% less energy content than Diesel, and runs between 20 and 30% higher in price than Diesel #2. My “ball park” numbers are based on DOE retail price estimates, as well as the fact that I directly purchase 60,000+ gallons of Diesel a year for a family farm. If bio-diesel was a better deal I’d be all over it.
Maybe on the west coast, but probably no where else. And did you subtract the subsidy to get that “costs less?”
What subsidy would that be? Ethanol subsidies were eliminated years ago.
“Ethanol subsidies were eliminated years ago.”
And they were replaced by the Renewable Fuel Standard, which guarantees ethanol farmers even more profit than the subsidies.
Subsidies were eliminated, but in their place we got the Renewable Energy Standard. which guarantees ethanol farmers even more income.
But you have to burn much more of it, so it does cost more.
g
Looking at current Futures contracts for October delivery, Ethanol is $1.465 and Gasoline is $1.505.
Ethanol and ethanol blends cost LESS, and numerous studies have shown the appx 10% of our transportation fuels that ethanol supplies drive costs of all transportation fuels lower.
Ethanol does have less BTU, and thus slightly lower MPG (appx 25% based on BTU), but when factoring ethanol costs, the cost per mile is equal or often lower than gasoline.
– 25% isn’t sightly lower.
– ethanol is subsidized in the US so you need to add back the subsidy to the cost.
When you lower the energy content of a product, it does not lower the cost of transportation. And now it seems we are lowering it for no value. When you substitute a subsidized fuel for a non subsidized fuel, then you are not evaluating the equivalent things. Again, west coasters may find E85 lower because their states have turned vampire when it comes to gasoline with taxes, but that is their choice, not mine.
Scott,
Ethanol has 2/3 the BTU content of normal gasoline, less than you claim, and has a shelf life that causes significant problem in small engines and boats that are stored in the winter. I just spent $1100 having the junk drained from my boat because ethanol loves water and this expense does not include the cost of fuel thrown away and disposal fees that can be enormous. Boaters hate ethanol and it also is a problem in small engines not used year around.
I would like to have the government mandate my competitor products contain 10% of mine in all their sales. It is a leach on the gasoline fuel and often poisons the host.
Ethanol price chart:
http://tfc-charts.w2d.com/charts/ACW.GIF
Gasoline price chart:
http://tfc-charts.w2d.com/charts/RB_W.GIF
Thanks Menicholas
Your charts show that the prices of ethanol and gasoline are similar. Given that ethanol has a heck of a lot less energy than gasoline, it is obviously not a ‘good deal’.
It says above that ethanol is no longer subsidised, while it also says that it is. The mechanism is via what tax or subsidy deal farmers for growing corn to turn into ethanol. It also includes subsidies that might be involved in the construction and operation of ethanol plants. I have no idea what the total ‘relief’ is involved on that score. I trust the carbon auditors which in the case of the article above, conclude that biofuels are net energy and/or cost and/or carbon negative.
For those reading the news, Singapore is once again under a cloud (literally) from the burning forests of Indonesia. The direct cause of this devastation is the subsidy of biofuels in Europe which requires blending, by law, of vegetable oil-derived content. That comes from palm oil. Those palm trees are monocropped in the far east, and that takes place on land previously occupied by tropical jungle. Europeans have passed laws that directly subsidise the destruction of the jungles of Malaysia and Indonesia. You could call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.
If you take into account the damage to the engines, ethanol/gasoline is clearly more expensive. When you consider ALL OF THE COSTS from field and machinery to manufacture to mixing to burning to engine wear and mileage, it is a clear BOONDOGGLE no matter how you cut it (honestly).
Well you shouldn’t be running a boat with a built in fuel tank without using an effective water separating fuel line filter.
Gas yanks, particularly in boats, and specially in boats left overnight on the water, are diabolical traps; the equivalent of a carnivorous pitcher plant.
The gas tank not full to the brim. fills during the warm day with warm moist air off the water. At night that water condenses on the cold lid of the gas tank, and then trickles down the side of the tank into the gas, where it promptly sinks to the bottom.
Now it is insulated from the air by the gasoline (including oxygenated gas), so now the water cannot evaporate, and escape from the tank next day.
So the cycle goes on unabated until your engine quits on you while you are 25 miles out to sea or some such place.
So add that gas line filter and watch it slowly fill up with water, that you can drain out of the bottom.
G
Corn, CBOT Symbol CZ6, is currently running around $3.25 a bushel.
Each bushel of corn can be fermented and distilled into roughly 2.7 gallons of ethanol.
$3.25 ÷ 2.7 equals approximately $1.20 basic commodity cost in corn per gallon (3.79L) of ethanol.
Selling ethanol as an additive at $1.43 when the feedstock cost alone is $1.20 does not make business sense, unless there are substantial subsidies, tax penalties, tax avoidance monies involved.
Each gallon of ethanol requires “Natural gas requirement of 34 cubic feet per gallon of ethanol” for distillation costs.
Roughly $0.0029 cents per cubic foot, for a total of $0.099 cents per gallon of ethanol.
This is without handling, storage, denaturing, transportation costs.
George,
Once the ethanol laced fuel gets water in it, the phase that exists cannot be filtered with the filter or a water separator. Invent one and you will be rich. Similarly the water/ethanol/gas mixes and the water no longer separates in the bottom of the tank like the good old days when one could siphon the water out of the tank bottom, which boaters often had to do, although I never had to siphon my tank.
Wish it was as easy as you say, but soured ethanol clogs carbs with a viscous mess that requires re building to clear even if the hoses are good for 10% ethanol.
Another factor if you boat in a dry climate the problems are less as opposed to a very humid climate.
Ethanol has 76,300 BTU per gal
Gasoline (conventional summer blend) has 114,500 BTU per gal.
E10 – 10% ethanol – has appx 110,680 BTU
E85 – 85% ethanol – has appx 82,300 BTU
Today I paid $1.57 per gallon for E85. E10 was priced at $2.14 at the same station. These are reflective of a normal price split in my area.
E85 cost me 26.6% less. Ignoring my real world mileage, and using only the BTU related differences above, E85 has 25.6% lower energy than E10.
On that basis my cost per mile driven is slightly LESS using E85 … my savings are greater than the decreased mileage per gallon.
Reality is different though. I have a 2003 Tahoe 5.3L flex fuel vehicle. I average appx 13.9mpg using E10. I average appx 11.4mpg using E85. My actual MPG using E85 is appx 18.8% lower than using E10. But I pay 26.6% less for the E85 … meaning my cost per mile driven is significantly lower using E85.
Modern flex fuel vehicles onboard engine management systems can adjust to and take advantage of E85 blends. That ability lessens the straight BTU gap between E10 and E85.
I live in MN. We are a big corn producing state, with a decent (not great) ethanol refining and distribution system. A number of stations offer flex fuels – with new blender stations offering E10, E15, E30, and E85 blends.
These are the facts …direct, current, real world data.
Catcracking … phase separation is a straw man. It ONLY occurs in vehicles left sitting for long periods of time. It can easily be addressed with fuel conditioner/stabilizers.
Gasoline has similar problems in vehicles that sit as well. Except there the gas turns to sludge and varnish. Which is why vehicles being stored – even with a full tank of gasoline – are recommended to have fuel stabilizer added as well.
Catcracking … if you just “… spent $1100 having the junk drained from my boat ” becasue of ethanol blended fuel you have no one to blame but yourself. The ONLY way that problem occurred was if you left fuel in the bottom for a long period with having added a fuel stabilizer.
Or if you have a very old boat with fiberglass tanks and or extensive rubber fuel lines. Which have been KNOWN to be an issue for at least 15 or more years now.
A Scott
Your ethanol energy content must be the HHV because ethanol is normally considered to have a bit less than 30 MJ/kg.
In other words the practical energy available is 19% less than cited. It is not a great ‘additive’ because to take advantage of what energy it has and it’s higher octane rating, an engine should be redesigned here and there. Ethanol runs cooler so the expansion is not as great, etc.
It doesn’t make economic sense as you pointed out, and it certainly doesn’t make energetic sense. The same land put into walnut trees would make a lot of money, sequester carbon and take far less work.
Scott,
As always your facts are wrong. You must live in a dry climate to make such wild claims or get paid to defend and distort the problems with ethanol fuel in boats and small engines.
To correct your misconception or distortion, I always use and am forced to buy expensive fuel conditioner made for boats which every marine store sells, but it does not always prevent the problems, everyone who has a knowledge of the subject knows full well there is always risk especially during winter layup. When I had severe problems I also spent a lot of $$$ on conditioners that claim to fix the problem without success. Just talk to any boat mechanic in the North East if you want more facts or join Boat US and learn about the problems. Some have even had the ethanol react with the tanks and destroy the engine in high end boats.
Boat US represents numerous boaters and is always advising congress to not require E 15 be sold which will further aggravate the problem, although the Ethanol Lobby does not care about the consumer when they Lobby for more content in the gasoline which the Administration also supports, even to the extent of subsidizing the expensive adding another pump and another fuel tank to the stations, yes there are still subsidies. Of course much of the expense of adding ethanol was born by the fuel distributor since expensive tank removal and replacement was required. Why don’t the ethanol producers pay that cost rather that the oil companies or the independent supplier. Many went out of business because they could not afford the modifications, I’m sure they don’t appreciate the government mandates as they lost their business.
No customer oriented enterprise would tell their customer what they did wrong when they have no facts. If ethanol was so great for small engines why would home depot be selling ethanol free fuel at $20 to $30 per gallon. Your claims are offensive just like any company that has a defective product, blame the customer!
Also You seem to lack an understanding of what BTU’s is all about. It is an absolute measure of the available energy in the fuel, while some engines may use the fuel more efficiently than others there is only 2/3 the energy in ethanol and the adjustments you talk about cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics regardless of the numerous claims otherwise. Of course if one goes to an ultra high, very expensive compression ratio in the engine then the efficiency can be significantly improved with ethanol over gasoline.
Please be more considerate of those who have spent a fortune fixing their equipment because there are actual problems created with ethanol in the fuel, it is real, don’t blame the consumer claiming they did not handle the defective product properly, it is offensive.
Everyone forgets it the burn ability, of the fuel that counts. Alchols do not have the flammable range or rate of fuel oils or gasolene. Alchols absorb waters from the fuels, changing the compounds ability to produce flame. That doesn’t help the production of power at the generator or the rear wheel.but does mean, that flooded holding tanks can be recovered for use. And why, my 01 pickup won’t run if I use King oil company. They say a minimum of 10 % alchols. If, that’s all available, I have to use premium,
As it is the hottest year already declared, even though the Midwest, only had one 100 degree day this year, I wonder how the engines will react to a -20 degree this year? We haven’t had one in a while.
For Catcracking :
Yes Cat, I will admit to total ignorance of the effect of alcohol in the gas on the effectiveness of water separating gas filters.
I used to own a 20 ft. center console offshore fishing boat with a built in 70 gallon gas tank, running twin 80 HP four cylinder Mercury Outboards.
I had a separating filter in the fuel line, that held about a half pint of gas, with a glass container you could see through. It was in an accessible enclosed location and it took 30 seconds to drain any visible water from the bottom. Well I had to install that myself, but I also installed everything else including some fancy hydraulic overpressure protection to protect the trim/tilt hydraulics from lower unit collisions.
But that was back in the late 1970s before ethanol gas.
G
A. Scott August 27, 2016 at 3:43 am
“I average appx 13.9mpg using E10. I average appx 11.4mpg using E85. My actual MPG using E85 is appx 18.8% lower than using E10. But I pay 26.6% less for the E85 … meaning my cost per mile driven is significantly lower using E85.”
Stating the difference in mpg is misleading. Based on your figures, you are saving around 10% cost per mile on gas by using E85 over E10:
E85 gives you 0.0877 gpm @ur momisugly $1.57/g = $0.138/mile.
E10 gives you 0.0719 gpm @ur momisugly $2.14/g = $0.154/mile.
E85 cost/m = 89.6% E10 cost/mile, effectively a 10% reduced cost of gas per driven mile to you. Then you need to factor in additional trips to the gas station, maintenance costs, vehicle cost & subsidies – a cost you are imposing on everyone else.
I wish I had your fuel prices though, here (North Queensland, Australia), E10 is $AU1.20/L and no ethanol gas is $AU1.24/L. I think that converts to $US3.52/Gal for no ethanol gas (91 octane). And I’m pretty sure prices in England are a lot higher.
If ethanol/gasoline blend problems for boat and small engine users are the fault of the owners and not an inherent problem with the blended fuels themselves, then riddle me this; Why don’t you see aviation gasoline (avgas) using blended fuels?
The answer: There would be so many wrongful death suits from the families of pilots killed when their engines failed due to the sludge (the result of the ethanol in the avgas combining with the water) clogging the fuel system, or suits filed by aircraft owners against the fuel companies and the FBOs because of the damage to their aircraft from those fuels. Hence, no ethanol blends in avgas.
Why anyone thought using ethanol blended gasoline in boats was a good idea escapes me.
A hydrophilic fuel (ethanol) that pulls water from the atmosphere blended with gasoline that will be used in a humid marine environment seems pretty stupid to me. Like catcracking, I too have had to deal with all kinds of ethanol-related problems with my boat.
My boat doesn’t sit idle for days or weeks at a time, but is used almost every day. I rarely let the fuel level in my tank get much below 1/8th of a tank unless I am using the boat all day (it will be filled before I tie up at my slip at the end of the day). I never had to be that diligent (or paranoid) before the ethanol blend days.
The fuel separators work fine for removing water from fuel, but not the yellowish sludge that results from the water and ethanol separating out in the gas tank. I’ve had to remove and blow out or replace portions of my boat’s fuel system more than once during a boating season when the system got clogged due to the sludge. From what I understand, it’s an even bigger (and more expensive) problem for boats with fuel injected engines. The so-called fuel stabilizers I’ve used only help to a point.
So tell me again just how wonderful the blended fuels are in a marine environment? So far I’m not seeing. Nor are a large number of my fellow boaters.
One of the Bigoil outfits; I believe Exxon, has said publicly, that they can meet ALL of the requirements of California Reformulated Gasoline standards for emissions with absolutely NO oxygenate of any kind; just an ordinary hydrocarbon petroleum product.
Oxygenated gas (ether or alcohol) is equivalent to putting a water molecule into each fuel molecule, essentially replacing an H with an OH. And the resultant heat of combustion is; you guessed it, lower by the heat of combustion of H2; hence the built in lower gas mileage.
You can add water to your gasoline yourself, using a water injector that injects water into the intake manifold or port, and get better performance out of the engine, than oxygenating the fuel.
So now we pay Bigoil and MoonBrown to put water in our gas.
g
But biofuels must be good…the governments paying for it
“The question, ‘How does the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline?’ does not have a scientific answer,” DeCicco said. “What I can say definitively is that, whatever the magnitude of the emissions impact is, it is unambiguously worse than petroleum gasoline.”
I come from a small farm town in Kansas. And when I think about how fossil fuel intensive modern farming is, tractors, grain haulers, combines, irrigation, trucks, and on and on, this is intuitively obvious. Oh, and what about all of the natural gas used to make ammonia based fertilizer? Ammonia is the second largest chemical product in the world, only behind sulfuric acid.
Ethanol is a rural development program that has saved many farmers and small towns. CO2 is irrelevant.
Would you rather pay your $2 to a farmer in Indiana / North Dakata or give it to a Saudi prince to fly around with one of Osama’s kids in his private A320?
I would crank down some of the eco-regs and invasive federal (and state) bureaucratic oversight, allowing farmers to make a living without it.
And I would also drill on American soil/assets.
Any business that can’t survive without subsidies deserves to die.
Then grow food, they say there are many still hungry in the world. Stop growing food that is made to burn, pollute the air and cause more taxes, instead of feeding people.
Due to ethanol subsidies, corn pricing has increased substantially. Relatives of mine in NW Iowa made so much money on corn that they drove the land price up from roughly $3000/acre 15 years ago to north of $20,000/acre. This made many people millionaires. Typical of liberal governments. Reward the wealthy, hurt the poor. All in the name of saving the environment. Just ask AlGore.
You got that right Dr. Bob.
Even with historic high yields, the price is higher than ever, even after adjusting for inflation.
If anyone tells ethanol is saving us money, tell them they are lying or woefully misinformed.
It is costing us at the pump, in the supermarket, in small motor repairs and lost gas mileage…in fact, everywhere you look.
It is a policy which benefits a very few and costs everyone else a bundle.
BTW, it is so much more now, it has put upwards pressure on other grain prices, as substitutions are made whenever possible at these process.
http://www.aboutinflation.com/_/rsrc/1368021702891/corn-vs-inflation/Corn_Inflation_Adjusted_Historical_Chart_April_2013.png
Here is a longer term chart:
http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornPrices_MO.jpg
The price has been coming down recently though, although it is still very high by historical norms:
http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/%40C.1
No I would rather give it to some Yankie or Texas Reb Fracker for good old USA gasoline.
G
Winipeg boy
You raise a false straw man, the same people pushing biofuels are trying to prevent developing our oil and natural gas fields, working with Iran and other dictators in the middle East seems to be preferred by the Administration over those nasty oilmen. The EPA is constantly pushing 15% or more biofuel which pushes out fossil fuels.
If you haven’t noticed our energy independence in North America has dramatically improved where OPEC no longer holds the cards despite US Government interference in oil and gas development.
Menicholas … “The price has been coming down recently though, although it is still very high by historical norms” … where do you guys come up with some of this silliness?
Corn prices were as high as $8 a bushel in 2012. They are now less than half that – at appx $3.24/bu. The same price they were in 1995.
Corn prices are not by any stretch of the imagination “high” not by “historical” or any other standards. Current corn prices are well below the cost to produce.
And the current low corn prices, and the steep drop by more than half over the last 5 years, occurred while we continue to use nearly 40% of the corn crop for ethanol.
Ah, the old “energy independence” red herring. Was wondering when that would crop up.
A. Scott,
As the three charts show, there are wide variations in the price from year to year, but the longer term trend is very clear.
2012 was a drought year, and the price spiked wildly, costing everyone a great deal of money.
1995 was another price spike, so pointing out that the current price is the same as 1995 is not exactly a point in favor of what you are trying to say.
The price is way down, but still as high as the previous highest price ever prior to the ethanol mandate being enacted.
As with long term atmospheric temperature charts, one must look at the trend average to get a sense of what is happening long term.
The price is up, despite more acreage planted than ever, and greater yields than ever.
Do you want to see those charts as well?
It should also be kept in mind how much the cost of corn has impacted food prices, from everything that includes corn itself, to eggs and beef.
The price of these items soared as the price of corn spiked several times over the past 8-10 years. But even when the price of corn and other grains went back down some, the price of finished products barely budged.
For many consumer products, portion sizes were reduced by manufacturers to lessen the sticker shock of price increases, and these sizes have remained, and the higher prices have remained as well. higher consumer prices have a lot of stickiness, much more so than the prices of the underlying commodities.
We have all been paying for the ethanol mandate every single time we eat, not just when we buy gas for our cars, and this amount of money we have all been fleeced of far exceeds any imagined benefit from using corn to make motor fuel.
Of course, the entire premise of this article is based on the notion that carbon neutrality is worth pursuing at all, instead of just a very expensive and destructive new brand of Emperor’s Clothing.
“…the entire premise [ ] is based on the notion that carbon neutrality is worth pursuing at all.”
Indeed. THIS is the core issue. Anthropogenic CO2 represents only a trivial amount (~4%) of the total emitted each year, and the principle greenhouse gas, water vapor at 25 to 100 times the amount of atmospheric CO2, is rarely considered.
That is not at all the premise of the article. The article is an investigation as to the carbon neutrality of biofuels. Look at the last statement by the author.
I’m sorry – I should have said ‘presumption.’
With RINs being forced on refiners at artificially high prices, the consumers pay for the reduction in refiner margins over time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/business/energy-environment/high-price-ethanol-credits-add-to-refiners-woes.html
The standard political story line to is to blame George Bush and Congress and make no mention of the increased volume mandates since then or the continuance itself when the need for the policy subsequently fell away. That’s a standard tactic by the way.
This one is a bipartisan fiasco.
Biodiesel only made sense when it was using waste oil from the food industry. The oil had already served its primary purpose and served a final one rather than simply degrading as waste. It went to heaven as french fry smelling automobile exhaust.
Even then, it depends on the price of oil. And there are the costs of collecting it, filtering, etc. If used locally, maybe, only maybe, it might make sense.
The amount of fuel it takes to plant, fertilize, weed control, harvest and transport a gallon of ethanol can push the fuel economy of the end product down into the single digits when it reaches the average vehicle. Tractors don’t run on ethanol, they run on diesel.
Meanwhile all of this activity goes un-taxed in most states, leaving such burden as the tax base for others.
The net energy balance of ethanol from corn is now appx 2.2 units of energy produced for every one unit of energy expended in production. This is for conventional straight ethanol from corn production. More efficient versions of this standard process, including use of corn stover and waste products in the ethanol process, are pushing the EROI’s much higher yet.
Cellulosic ethanol processes are finally starting to come online after languishing during the downturn, with significantly higher EROI’s.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
I have read the USDA reports in the past they make many flawed assumptions and I would not trust them at all.
Professor Pimentel has long pointed out the USDA errors, now another is confirming his science:
“The MIT press release summarizes researcher Tiffany Groode’s research thusly:
Based on her “most likely” outcomes, she concluded that traveling a kilometer using ethanol does indeed consume more energy than traveling the same distance using gasoline.
Nor does Groode parrot the Pimentel-relies-on-ancient-data line. Here’s how the the press release quotes her:
The results show that everybody [including Pimentel, mentioned by name] is basically correct … The energy balance is so close that the outcome depends on exactly how you define the problem. [my emphasis]
This is precisely what Pimentel has long argued: that most ethanol energy-balance studies omit key factors like the energy required to manufacture farm equipment.
In our interview, Pimentel told me that his methodology is consistent with life-cycle net energy studies of other fuels. I’m not competent to comment on the accuracy of that statement, but the MIT researcher doesn’t challenge it.”
Catcracking … outright BS. Patzek & Pimental’s silly claims have been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted – by a large number of credible main stream papers … shown for the oil funded fraud they are.
Does anyone have any numbers on just how many gallons of diesel it takes to produce an amount of Iowa corn to make a single gallon of 100% ethanol? Just to grow the corn from start to finish and truck it to the distillation plant.
Been saying this for 15 years. Boone Pickens nailed it when he said that the only reason that corn biofuels were even in the market is that 33 Senators are from farm states.
Bob Dole also said that when questioned about corn ethanol
I’ve seen video of Mr. Gore saying as much in testimony before Congress . .
Dennis Wingo, I knew a Dorsey Wingo that ran a helicopter service in the 80’s and 90’s. Any relation to you?
If even a fraction of that government support had gone into larger Prius batteries over the past 10 years, there would have been 10 times the benefits they were seeking for the environment and foreign imports. Instead we got low end batteries with limited impact.
Nothing wrong with Prius batteries. They do the full hybrid job and last better than 10 years. My MY 2007 Ford hybrid Escape with AWD and class1 tow hitch is still going strong. Still 32 city and 28 highway at 70mph. Even with gas at $2/gal (Atkinson cycle I4 uses regular) we still save about $1000/year compared to the equivalent power V6 non-hybrid. 120 hp gas plus 80 hp electric. Idle off, electic only under 20 mph unless accerating, and 80% regenerative braking. Sanyo NiMN cells in air cooled Ford battery pack.
All electrics or range extended electrics do not make sense. Weigh more (volt is +450 pounds), capacity limited, range limited, nevermind the cost. And there is no battery breakthrough to fix those problems.
Question: Would a used plug-in Prius make sense, say with 35K miles?
I’m not ashamed of my pretty little ’92 Honda Civic VX which, despite 240k miles (!) on the engine, still gets 40+ mpg around town, and ~50 mpg on the highway. Best part: I picked it up for only $500, leaving plenty in the piggy bank for gasoline. Show me another practical commuter, hybrid or otherwise, with a lower TCO.
@brians356
My ’94 VX with 340,000 miles has a wiring problem now so is parked waiting for me to have time to rewire it, but was getting 40 around town and 48 to 55 on the highway (depending on where – on coastal interstates I have gotten in excess of 60, but if there are hills it is only high 40s.) I love that little car.
Ah yes … coal fueled vehicles are SO much better for the environment than bio fueled ones.
At least coal gives more energy out than it takes to produce it . This is where corn base ethanol fails. If ethanol was so great why don’t the farmers who grow corn use it in their tractors.
They are. Since the CO2 in coal has been locked away for centuries, it now has been released to increase the atmospheric fertilization effect of added CO2. In addition, it also aids in reducing the amount of water needed for plants to grow more robust since the stoma on the leaves decrease in area with increased CO2 concentration reducing evapotranspiration. IN a sense, more CO2 has a negative feedback. It reduces the amount of H2O released into the atmosphere from plant respiration and since H2O is a much more prevalent and potent GHG, this may actually be a negative feedback.
Hmmm, I think there is a grant application in there?
Matt
catcracking: “At least coal gives more energy out than it takes to produce it . This is where corn base ethanol fails. If ethanol was so great why don’t the farmers who grow corn use it in their tractors.”
One more time – the current US average net energy balance for conventionally processed first generation corn based ethanol is appx 2.3 units of energy produced for every one unit of energy expended. In more efficient ethanol areas – like IOAWA and MINNESOTA – with decent distribution, and local supply of corn and local refineries, the net energy balance if above 4 units of energy produced for each to 1 unit of energy expended.
Refineries using 2nd generation processes including increasing using ethanol byproducts including corn residuals and corn stover and greatly increasing the net energy balance. A plant using corn stover and residuals for just 50% of their power, will see net energy balance significantly increase – to more than 25 units of energy produced for every 1unit expended.
Your claims that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is created are outright, 100% false.
And many farmers DO use bio fuels in their tractors. The primary reason they do not use ethanol is becasue they are DIESEL tractors. And unless you know of some new diesel engine that can burn ethanol, your insinuation is simply ridiculous.
I doubt that. They have been researching batteries for over 100 years. Most improvements have been incremental for decades.
it is so nice to have my prejudices confirmed.:-)
There are two nonclimate reasons that a small amount of ethanol in gasoline makes sense. First, it replaces toxic MBTE as an octane booster. (MBTE replaced ‘lead’). Second, it is an oxygenate that reduces ‘smog’. The amount needed depends on regular or premium gas and location; LA summer fuel is the highest and that is why the natiomal blendwall was set at 10%. It is also why pumps are labeled ‘up to 10% ethanol’. Varies by season, by gas grade, and location.
Anything more than 10% is pure farm lobby nonsense.
The original plant to convert to cellulosic ethanol (e.g. from corn stover or switchgrass) has pretty much foundered on technical and economic issues. The two scale plants are heavily subsidized and both have operating problems despite using different technologies. Everybody else (Range fuels, Coskata) went belly up.
You certainly don’t need 10 percent ethanol to replace MBTE for that function. Beyond that the blend and grade complexity in places like the Chicago market are dumb. A targeted effort to put larger batteries in hybrid cars would have done more for air quality over a 10 year period.
I certainly agree about full hybrid cars. Idle off city picks up 5-7%. Regen braking picks up 10-12 percent. Atkinson cycle picks up 15%. Downsized engine picks up 10%. Net efficiency gain on order of ~40%. But you don’t need bigger hybrid batteries. They float between 45-55% charge to max lifetime, unlike Volt or Tesla. They are sized to accept regen braking more than for power boost.
Prius is now in its fourth generation of electric machine, electronics, and battery as of MY2015. Steady reductions in size, weight, and cost. Ford is in its second (Escape=>Fusion). Nobody else yet has a first generation full hybrid worth talking about.
MTBE is not particularly toxic. It’s a hundred times less toxic than gasoline or diesel fuel. The main problem with it was that it has a very nasty taste that is very apparent just a couple parts per million and was being dumped into old, leaky, rusty fuel tanks in service stations. Once the leaks got into the water lines(most have many leaks) or an aquifer it caused an immediate, justified ruckus in neighborhoods, towns, and cities. Was a dumb move, but MTBE was the cheapest effective substitute they could find. Something like tertiary butyl alcohol works just as well, isn’t nearly as obnoxious, but is more expensive.
Ethanol can have a very pleasant taste. Maybe that’s why Al Gore promoted it.
Methyl tert-butyl ether is also highly mobile in aquifers.
Although the new rules for gasoline storage tanks should have solved the problem if they had not done away with it.
MTBE is still widely used outside the US.
And they actually put quite a bit of it into some formulations of gasoline, depending on season and location.
It was as much as 15% by volume here in the US.
Amoco on the East coast sold high octane fuel w/o lead, I used to buy it all the time. It is a matter of the Refining processing, lead was cheaper unless one already invested in processing hardware that produced more high octane fuel. We especially used it in our outboard engines.
To max gasoline refined per barrel crude you need an octane enhancer. Results in lowest cost highest volume.
Ristvan,
I am not an expert in the the economics of gasoline production and you may be more knowledgeable than I am on the specifics that subject. However there are numerous means to get more gasoline out of a Barrel of crude at the expense of less heaver fuel products. In fact Catcracking is probably the most widely applied process which was developed during WW II in a high priority wartime effort and played a significant role to keep our fighter and other planes in the air.
If one is more interested watch the URL below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiLjYc8n38
Other process that produce high octane fuels include:
In the years since then, many other versions of the process have been developed by some of the major oil companies and other organizations. Today, the large majority of gasoline produced worldwide is derived from the catalytic reforming process.
To name a few of the other catalytic reforming versions that were developed, all of which utilized a platinum and/or a rhenium catalyst:
Rheniforming: Developed by Chevron Oil Company.
Powerforming: Developed by Esso Oil Company, currently known as ExxonMobil.
Magnaforming: Developed by Engelhard and Atlantic Richfield Oil Company.
Ultraforming: Developed by Standard Oil of Indiana, now a part of the British Petroleum Company.
Houdriforming: Developed by the Houdry Process Corporation.
CCR Platforming: A Platforming version, designed for continuous catalyst regeneration, developed by UOP.
Octanizing: A catalytic reforming version developed by Axens, a subsidiary of Institut francais du petrole (IFP), designed for continuous catalyst regeneration.
Given a choice I am not certain that the Refiners would use much ethanol given it’s many drawbacks.
I actually preferred MBTE over Ethanol. I thought that Gasoline was toxic also and the solution should have been to replace the leaky tanks.
Purely anecdotal and personal: In 1991 I bought a new Geo Metro station wagon type car, which got 55 miles per gallon of regular gas. In 1999 I bought a new (used 17 miles–long story) Geo Metro sedan type, which got 48-52 MPG. A few years after the switch to ethanol, I got suspicious and rechecked the gas mileage. The 1991 Geo now got 38 mpg, and the 2000 (purchased late 1999) got 33. I asked the mechanic where I get my car work done, and he said, “Oh, yeah, gas mileage suffers. And that’s not all–watch your exhaust system (plus several other things).” A couple of weeks ago, I took the 1991 Geo in for its annual inspection. It still ran perfectly well, maintaining the 38-40 mpg, but I got a call saying the exhaust system was shot and would need replacement; however, he had searched everywhere, including junkyards, and could not find the parts. One merchant told him, “If you can find [that part] any closer than Israel, please let me know.” Upshot: After 25 years, I finally had to junk that car, and I strongly suspect the culprit was ethanol.
I recently got my old mower out and cleaned it up… All the elastic plastic parts had turned brittle. I suspect I was getting Ethanol in the gas I was using back when I used this equipment (not on purpose, I was supposedly buying non-ethanol treated gas but who knows).
I remember this mower was a devil to start and had trouble with sputtering and dying when in use at random intervals, so I was not looking forward to using it again. Went to look for gas – I can find nothing but E10 for sale around here. Finally I found REAL gasoline at Lowe’s, for $20 per gallon. OMG!
So I setup a chemistry process to separate the alcohol out of the gas. Made a few liters of improved gasoline minus the ethanol (costs me around $2.70 per gallon). The mower runs like new, I barely tug at the pull cord and it starts. It never sputters or dies. WOW what a difference getting the ethanol out of the gas has made.
Now this is on a 2-cycle engine, but I have to imagine any engine will run better on non-ethanol infected gasoline, assuming the octane level is correct.
I also recently started working on a car I had not started in 12 years – still REAL gas in the tank. Pulled the gas out and looked at it in a glass jar – no water visible – it was in a tightly sealed gas tank. Then I looked at newer gas stored in a plastic gas can (about 4 years old) – this was E10. There was like a 1/2 inch layer of water and alcohol in the bottom.
So the morale of this story – E10 absorbs water and separates if left for more than a month or so. Alcohol can ruin certain plastic parts. When the water separates, it can rust metal parts. So over and above the so-called Carbon Cost of the product, their is an increase in RISK the buyer assumes that could lead to extra expenses they would not otherwise have incurred. I was fairly neutral on E10 until this latest round of personal experiences. Now I am a REAL GAS (i.e. no alcohol) fan!
I just spent $1100 getting ethanol laced gas out of my boat because it caused stalling and frequent Carb cleanings. That does not include the cost of the ethanol laced gas or it’s disposal which can be expensive.
Tell us how we can separate the gas/ethanol to avoid this expense.
Cat:
There’s really no alternative but to buy ethanol free premium. My wife is in the boat business, (she does custom outfitting for people with way, way, way too much money), and when they get around to cost of operation issues she just tells them, “premium gas is part of the cost of having a boat.”
Mark, Ethanol free gasoline is not available in New Jersey except for airplanes and now $30/gallon in certain stores for small engines, which tells one something about safety for aircraft, does not matter if your boat stops running in the inlet.
Here in Fort Myers, they recently started opening Wawa food markets/gas stations, and they sell ethanol free gas at the pump!
I love that place…they also sell Philly soft pretzels and Herr’s potato chips, and have the best coffee bar.
But the gas is the best part…I use a boat everyday at work and the ethanol free stuff makes it run so much better…I love it.
Oh, and the price…about $2.70/gallon.
They must use Robert’s process.
Don’t know about the US, but I buy Shell Premium ethanol free fuel for all my small engines – chainsaws, mowers, 1988 quad, and sometimes for my SUV when the premium/regular price differential is close as I get 15% less fuel consumption with the ethanol free premium versus the ethanol enhanced regular. I have checked the fuel consumption over the same 800 km route several times. The ethanol free is always a way better for fuel economy but the price for distance ends up about the same.
You can go on pure-gas.org for a list of ethanol free gas in the U.S. and Canada. It’s mostly airports and racing shops. It’s usually sold in 5 gallon cans and 55 gallon drums and I know the racing shops will not put it in your gas tank.
Mark from Midwest, is premium really ethanol-free? I thought the octane rating was raised by adding ethanol?
There are a few products which can ameliorate the effects of Ethanol. I’ve used one called PRI-G for years in all my gas engines (2 and 4 cycle). 1 oz for 20 gal. Everything starts immediately and runs smoothly, either at 0F or after 6 months sitting in the shed. I only use premium high octane and fill up small tanks by putting some in the auto tank first, in order to drain out the crud in the line.
Haven’t had to un-gum or clean anything in years.
Combined with synthetic oil, the engines now seem to have an unlimited lifetime…
Yes, ethanol stabilizers are widely available and recommended for small motors, especially if left unused periodically, and for marine applications, as well as places like Florida where the humidity is very high most of the time.
They do stabilize the ethanol, seeming to prevent absorption of water and preventing the damaging effects, but they do nothing to increase the energy content of ethanol. Good idea to use one, but stabilizers do not ameliorate all of the detriment of the ethanol mandate.
Throughout Canada all Shell V-Power is ethanol free.
I fail to see how anything on our planet can be “carbon neutral”. Carbon is the essence of life on Earth and the useless “scientists” who shove “rhubarb” in order to gain money for questionable research, should be given a standard for discussion that has credence within our knowledge.
Political comment must be flagged up as such, savaged by the honest scientists.
I do hope I have stirred something.
When I was in college, I went to see ‘Total Recall’ – one of the sub-plots was that the evil director of Mars was ‘price-gouging’ the oxygen under threat of cutting it off. I remember laughing the time, ‘boy, if they could find a way to take it away from us, they WOULD charge us for air.’
Turns out they didn’t even have to find a way to take it away from us. They just charged us anyway.
Yesterday’s absurdity…
Both the article “is not” and the highlighted “is too” response miss what to me seems to be a key question. Can biofuels be produced using only land and biofuels produced by that land? In other words, can we grow some crop, corn, switch grass, trees, etc. and use the harvested biomass to produce more “fuel” than is used in producing that “fuel”. Or to put it another way, can green plants produce a harvestable source of fuel sustainably?
To mind the answer is no. Photosynthesis is a low efficiency process. Only 1-3% of the sunlight is converted to plant mass. That is a very small margin to work with to process the harvest and produce an excess of liquid fuel for other uses. All multi-step chemical processes have significant losses at every step. When you stack the 60-70% yields in a multi-step process you can see any yield vanishing quickly- harvest(.85) * milling(.9) * fermentation(.17) * separation(.85) * storage and handling(.05)=.55 yield. Then subtract seed, fuel for planting, maintainence, harvest, drying, milling, fermentation, separation, storage, transportation, capital costs for land, capital for equipment, interest, miniucule profit and it’s easy to see where producing only 1% or so of the total crop mass produced as fuel would be the outcome. And that would be using a totally integrated operation.
A better option would use a modified Fischer-Tropsch reaction to both produce electricity and oils directly from biomass and/or algae. The Air Force has contracted several projects to test and certify bio JP-8 which will cost around $30 a gallon in production. That price doesn’t include the CO2 costs of producing the biomass or algae. A combined reactor(which needs very high temperatures) could also produce electricity with very little overall CO2 output. The electricity production makes the whole mess economically viable, perhaps without subsidies. But I give it little hope. Our local city, Harrisburg, PA, lost millions trying to get a trash-> electricity waste plant going. It’s now running after 10 years but will never pay off the debt incurred from design through a much delayed startup.
No wonder the military can no longer afford the maintenance on their equipment with government mandated $30/gallon biofuel from the administration
The military and their abjectly ignorant biofuel mandates is one area on which we fully agree.
From farming to refining, ethanol is a very water intensive process.
Excellent point, Ethanol is playing havoc with the water tables which may have significant impact.
The proof of the pudding is in the price. You can model costs all you like, with or without tractors, silos, distillation columns, etc. but it all comes down to price. You need to buy about 25-30% more ethanol to drive the same miles. If a vendor can bring a gallon of ethanol to your tank for 0.75x or 0.70x the cost of a gallon of gasoline (not accounting for taxes) and no subsidies, then the process is a winner. No if’s, and’s, or but’s. Every cost along the way is going to be accounted for in the final price.
philohippous – The point never emphasized is the fact that fossil fuels (coal, oil, and the products derived from them) have had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate the dispersed solar energy that hits the earth. That concentration of chemical energy is a VERY tough thing to try to compete against when trying to make that same energy from current sunlight. It is not at all surprising to find very low energy yields. The fossil fuels that a [huge] energy head start. That is precisely what makes them so valuable – the concentration part is mostly already done when they come out of the ground.
[Please reserve square brackets for the mods’ use on this site. .mod]
‘(have) a hugh energy head start.’
philohippous
A farm needs to have about 15% of its area planted in sunflowers to produce enough oil to run the farm tractors. That has been the case for 40 years.
Now, can the fertiliser needed to have modern production be produced on that same farm? That is the $64,000 biodynamic question. So it could be done (at all), but would one make a living doing so? If the farm was far less productive it might require a fraction of the tillage and transport so that is a gain. Can it survive on solar input alone?
Bringing energy to the farm from, say, five other parcels of land not devoted to food production makes sense because the equipment can be used more intensively on the first parcel. If it can be shown that permaculture or biodynamic farming are energetically superior as energy efficient systems we should not be surprised if that is where the trends point.
Labour intensive gardening is extremely productive if the system is well designed. The entire planet’s population could eat from gardens equal in area to Uganda, a small country.
A related question to your very good first one is ‘can a windmill be produced with energy only derived from other windmills? 1 for 1? That means, can 30 windmills produce another 30 within their working lifetimes? With any energy to spare or not?
Apart from the huge workforce needed to make millions of windmills, would those mills produce enough power to run the rest of society over and above their own replacement energy needs?
If a windmill produced 10% more energy that it took to make it, all things considered, I would be surprised.
Clearing a forest, taking up CO2 12 months a year. For methanol corn, with CO2 uptake half the year.
Regardless how CO2 impacts climate.
You have wonderful forests…mine drop their leaves in late October and leaf back out in early March. After dropping the leaves the little fungus and bacteria then convert the leaves into CO2. There are about 30% of the trees that are evergreen, so maybe they can compensate.
Owen, during the 90ies from Portugal to Indonesia the TV broadcast’ smoke and fumes global due to ‘climate change’.
That was criminal environmental surge of power, clue ‘CO2 prevention’ – burning forests for methanol corn and riding on Lehmann brothers housing-related assets bankruptcy.
Of course, that same ‘climate change’ alarmism wasn’t true then, how can it be true now.
a good interview with Robert Bryce (Manhattan Institute, April 2016) re burning food for fuel with his public link to DeCicco’s report from last year (39 page pdf) –
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/politicians-love-burning-food-fuel-8716.html
“More than 40% of U.S. corn is now consumed in the production of ethanol. With
the United States by far the world’s largest producer and exporter of corn, this represents
an estimated 15% of global corn production. A recent survey by the National Academy of
Sciences estimated that globally biofuels expansion accounted for 20-40% of the price
increases seen in 2007-8, when prices of many food crops doubled. ”
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/12-01WiseBiofuels.pdf
Why we do this to ourselves and our neighbors is befuddling. Now if we could get the cellulosic ethanol working with waste products, how far behind could a Mr. Fusion be???
Cellulosic ethanol is a total failure and will never work without massive tax payer subsidies as the Administration is subsidizing failure after failure. Some people will not learn as long as it is not their money.
Complete rubbish Robert B. These silly claims about corn used for bio fuels and food prices are proven outright false both by looking at the whole historical record, and more so by recent history and data.
Corn was as high as $8.00/bu over the last 5 years. Today it is $3.18/bu. In 1995 it was $3.24. Corn used for ethanol has remained virtually the same for the last 5 years.
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/corn.aspx?timeframe=5y
Please explain how corn used for bio fuels has caused food and feed prices to increase when the truth is corn prices have DECREASED by over HALF in the last 5 years, even while corn used for bio fuels has remained steady, at nearly 40% of total US production?
http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-used-of-ethanol-and-ddg-production
And a BIGGER question, IF an increase in corn prices as a result of corn used for bio fuels DID increase food costs, then … how come food prices have not decreased dramatically with the 50% drop in corn prices over the last 5 years?
And wasn’t one of the reasons behind the Arab Spring said to be the result of this increase in the cost of food leading to local unrest.
If so, then bio-fuels have a lot to answer for, and have come with massive expense and consequence. Pity Europe who are just beginning to feel this consequence.
RV, it was wheat prices, not corn, that helped trigger Arab Sping. In Egypt, Mubarak went after wheat went up 66% in two years thanks mainly to poor Russia/Ukraine harvests.
Do any of these studies include the carbon footprint of all the extra bureaucrats needed to implement and enforce the regulations?
There was stories out earlier this year about how the EU’s bio-fuel policy has actually increased emissions. All things accounted, palm oil is the worst, causing 3 times as much CO2 as just burning fossil fuel.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/biodiesel%E2%80%99s-impact-emissions-extra-12m-cars-our-roads-latest-figures-show
Ah, but the emissions are in Indonesia while the green palm oil biodiesel virtue is in Europe. And, your obervation also shows how and why orangutangs are threatened by climate change–Um, the green fear of climate change.
The Greens just can’t stop killing wildlife in their efforts to conquer CO2. Collateral damage, I guess.
Just more governmental cronyism.
Someone should rush this info to moonbeam before he signs another job killing bill passed in the Legislature:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/california-passes-toughest-greenhouse-gas-emission-curbs
“the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” department”
Good intentions, my @ss. More like lies to cover up the graft and corruption.
This pretty much DOES say it all about this report and author. He has no scientific clue what the emissions effect of ethanol is, but he absolutely, positively and with certainty knows it is worse than gasoline.
“The question, ‘How does the overall greenhouse gas emission impact of corn ethanol compare to that of gasoline?’ does not have a scientific answer,” DeCicco said. “What I can say definitively is that, whatever the magnitude of the emissions impact is, it is unambiguously worse than petroleum gasoline.”
What a complete load of ridiculousness. This is a study – and author – that have continually regurgitated this same flawed work, which he admits has no scientific basis. This is highly similar to the thoroughly and repeatedly refuted silliness from Patzek & Pimental.
Who were, like DeCiccio, directly funded by the oil industry.
Interesting, It does not take long when you are loosing an argument to resort to name calling and blame the oil industry especially when meanwhile the government dumps $20+ million dollars every year in climate change.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
I think you meant $20+ Billion dollars…
When NASCSR moved to their Green racing fuel, they at first got about 2 laps less on a tank full of fuel. We used pure alcohol in Sprint Cars but we needed a high capacity alcohol fuel pump which pumped alcohol into a fuel log. That which the engine did not use was routed back to the tank. The alcohol was very powerful and allowed the engine to run cooler but we used a great deal more of the fuel.
Everyone conveniently forgets to scale up biofuels. A high school student, armed with a few basic questions, an excel spreadsheet, the Internet and nothing more than basic arithmetic could determine in a matter of hours that biofuels are a total scam and grossly inadequate.
If 100% of the arable land in the U.S. were planted in biofuel crops, and those crops spontaneously seed, sprout, grow, mature, self-harvest, sun dry, and burn in place (without human intervention), and 100% of the stored energy is mysteriously captured for beneficial use as transportation fuel, it would supply only 46% of U.S. transportation fuel demand. If one includes in these calculations the energy inputs for crop production, processing, marketing and distribution, biofuels would only supply about 5% of U.S. transportation fuel demand. If we really wanted to “go bio” by planting ALL U.S. farmland, rangeland and forest land in biofuel crops, it would supply maybe 10% of transportation fuel demand.
And there is no silver bullet crop (e.g., algae or switchgrass) that would appreciably change this dismal picture. Of course, I should not need to mention that implementing this grand plan would leave us with no domestic food or natural fiber supply, our national ecosystems would be destroyed, and there would be dramatic species extinctions.
Biofuels? Move on. There is nothing to see here.
Good point – biofuels are not scalable because they are a function of Earth’s surface area. Same with solar and wind.
I did a back of the envelope calculation years ago, and basically you needed to plant 6X the acreage in corn you have now to replace all gasoline in vehicles. That didn’t include diesel. I don’t know if there is that much suitable corn acreage in the US.
And even if there was, you’d need massive use of hydrocarbons anyway, for fertilizer. Corn is a nutrient hog.